4 ms·
I was thinking something similar! Just don't know these days. She may have gotten the position on merit, or not. I feel bad. But what's the alternative: Bullsh
by discombobulate 10y ago
I was thinking something similar! Just don't know these days. She may have gotten the position on merit, or not.
I feel bad. But what's the alternative: Bullshit & say I'm sure her being a woman has nothing to do with the promotion? I just can't say that with any certainty.
I guess affirmative action is a double-edged sword.
- tmeasday 10y agoDoes it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Do you let that (potential) bias affect your judgment of whether the guy "deserved" it? Biases exist. Meritocracy is an illusion. Deal with it.
- true_religion 10y agoI think what's getting lost in this discussion is that Affirmative Action isn't a trigger for "hire a woman over the more qualified man". All it mandates is that if on paper two candidates are equal scores, your process should pick the female/minority candidate. Historically, if you left it up to people in the organisation they'd go with their "gut" feelings and pick whomever was of a similar background to them. If two candidates aren't equal, you always pick the better candidate.
- discombobulate 10y agoThat's mandated discrimination.
- selllikesybok 10y agoNot in the sense of the word that you seem likely to be using, no.
- discombobulate 10y agoI checked the definition of the words before I posted. Please, enlighten me?
- discombobulate 10y ago> Does it bother you if a male candidate gets a position that maybe there's a better qualified female candidate who wasn't considered because "maybe she wants to start a family" or some bullshit? Yes. I try and have a coherent worldview. And I don't think discrimination is useful for productivity.
- tmeasday 10y agoSo then all candidates are tainted and you may as well not worry about it. My point is discrimination exists no matter what. So try not to let it bother you.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rustynails 10y agoMeritocracy is not an illusion. Not everybody practices it. However, I've always tried to hire the best candidate. I remember one guy who came in, dressed smartly. He had a good power handshake and spoke with great confidence. The work we were doing was complex and we needed stayers, not high flyers. Of 10 candidates interviewed, he was the only one I didn't hire. You may say that decision wasn't based on merit. I saw his qualifications and experience and judged all of the potential the candidates suitable. I then eliminated on suitability to the environment. Some of us do believe in meritocracy. It's most probably the reason I reject most of the MSM today. Anyone who is honest should be appalled at almost every media outlet for extreme sexism.
- grey-area 10y agoYour statements reveal more about your insecurity than her competence. I suspect you don't know anything about her but still feel qualified to cast aspersions on her competence. Why is that?
- rustynails 10y agoI don't think that's a fair assessment. Much of today's media is extremely sexist. There is excellent reason to be suspicious. _Nobody_ in the MSM is willing to be honest about sexism. It undermines the talented women (like my wife who is a talented engineer) when the media are so prejudiced. Even my wife gets angry at the MSM for its bias. Some people have said that Stanford don't have a sexist/racist (affirmative action) hiring policy. So, congratulations are in order. There are enough people here backing that up. If the MSM were willing to be honest (heck, I'd even take 1 media outlet I could trust), you'd find less scepticism.
- UncleMeat 10y agoShe was a highly respected chair of the cs department and has been a major player in the academic community for years. She's qualified.